ng0 <[email protected]> writes: > I'd say we split up: > > 2.0 MiB and bigger: > python (3.7 MiB go) > perl (2.3 MiB go) > haskell (2.1 MiB go) > bioinformatics (2.0 MiB go)
Modules named after languages would probably benefit from splitting them. A *lot* of software is written in those languages, and we ought to move packages to where they make sense (e.g. web, documentation, admin, etc). I disagree on splitting up “bioinformatics”; it’s already a “topic module”. It would be hard to split by field (e.g. “RNA-seq”), because many tools cover a wide range. I’m against some arbitrary split, which would give us something silly like “(gnu packages bioinformatics a)”, “(gnu packages bioinformatics b)”, etc. > And those we can consider to split up as they are bigger than 1MiB > and smaller than 2MiB: > statistics (1.4 MiB go) > gnome (1.4 MiB go) > xorg (1.3 MiB go) > emacs (1.2 MiB go) > web (1.2 MiB go) > ruby (1.1 MiB go) The only module I’d split from this list is “ruby” (for the same reasons as above). “statistics” will change as soon as we get started with the much bigger “cran” module — but that’s going to cause more problems, not solve them :) Anyway, Andy has already identified a problem with the compilation, so I’d defer any work on these other modules. Independent of how this goes, however, (gnu packages python) ought to be split up. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net
